I shudder to think how many innocent drivers were arrested so DPS troopers could meet their quota. I guarantee these innocent drivers all had “bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage” and that they all “failed” the HGN.

Texas is supposed to have laws against law enforcement quotas. However, I’m sure no one involved in this scandal will face any charges.

8 responses to “Texas DPS DWI Quota”

I wonder how you will feel about this issue when one of your friends or loved ones are killed by one of these “innocent” people who are drinking and driving. And I wonder how you’d feel if you found out a DPS Trooper had stopped that drunk driver only moments before the accident and decided to let them go because he didn’t want to be accused of trying to meet a quota. If it were not for DPS DWI enforcement, hundreds, if not thousands, of people would probably have died in alcohol related crashes over the years.

As a former truck driver, I can tell you that a drunk driver is easy to spot. While the wobbly drunks are just as guilty as the father who chugs a beer on the way home…it’s the wobbly ones that kill. I’ve seen troopers on the highways ganging up to pull over cars, in anticipation of arrests…while the wobbly ones continue down the road. This violates the ENTIRE PURPOSE of traffic enforcement.

Scott,Do you really wonder how I would feel after a tragedy? Do you want to ask a different question? Maybe something with some substance.For starters- Read my post on the truth about alcohol related fatalities. Arrests have gone up 30% in Fort Worth and fatalities are also up. Think a little deeper on important issues.Anon hit the nail on the head- Our DWI laws have cops wasting time on drivers who will not cause accidents. Ergo, deadly and dangerous drunks go free.

You are correct that the “wobbly drunks” cause more accidents and kill more people. But the fact is, someone who is just barely over the legal limit is sill impaired. Their reaction times are lowered and the changes of them being involved in an accident still go up. Yes, they’ll probably make it home safely, but why even take the chance? Everyone who is arrested for DWI is given the opportunity to give a sample of their breath for alcohol testing. If someone is not really intoxicated, this affords them the opportunity of proving so.I’m not saying that bad DWI arrests are never made. As with any profession, there are good cops and there are bad cops. It’s still better than no cops. With no enforcement or fear of enforcement, I think the roads would be a more dangerous place.

“But the fact is, someone who is just barely over the legal limit is sill impaired. Their reaction times are lowered and the changes of them being involved in an accident still go up…Yes, they’ll probably make it home safely, but why even take the chance?”Scott we should take that chance because arresting .08 drivers makes the road less safe. There are opportunity costs for arresting drivers who would not cause accidents. The result is that dangerous drivers get away.Why take that chance? Because freedom is more important than MADD’s crusade against alcohol. By your logic we should ban a whole class of drivers who are not in peak physical or mental condition and also outlaw a whole host of activities from using the radio/cellphone to eating in a car. Does freedom have any value if it is opposed to your definition of public safety?

Robert,As I’m sure you’re aware, we could go back and forth on this subject enlessly. We both feel strongly enough about the subject that I will never convince you of my beliefs, and likewise, I will never feel as you do about the subject. My strong opinions stem from a tragedy in which I lost a family member in a drunk driving accident. The drunk who caused the accident tested at 0.92 percent, not much over the 0.08 limit. And I know, fatal accidents happen every day in which no one is drinking at all. That’s why they’re called accidents. I think I’m just more militant on this issue than most people due to my past.Thanks for exchanging ideas with me. I respect your opinion, however I don’t feel that further conversation on this issue between you and I will get anywhere.Take care and stay safe.

Anon- The link to the newstory is in my post.Scott,I am sorry for your loss. Advocating for liberty means not having easy answers when tragedy strikes. I accept that freedom has consequences, and accidents are one price we pay for freedom. Thanks for reading.RG

This is not legal advice. This is educational/entertainment/blogging. Reading this blog and/or submitting comments will never form an attorney-client relationship. That is a serious step for us to take. I don’t even know you. Consult with an attorney before choosing any course of conduct.

This blog is made available for educational purposes only. By using or participating in this site you understand that there is no attorney client privilege between you and the attorney responding. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney that practices in the subject practice discipline and with whom you have an attorney client relationship along with all the privileges that relationship provides. The law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The information and materials provided are general in nature, and may not apply to a specific factual or legal circumstance described in the question.